Data

CO₂ storage balance of selected scenario comparisons

Cells with gray background = comparison with a no-use scenario.
Scenario 1 (higher timber extraction) Scenario 2 (lower timber extraction) Framework data Carbon storage balance (forest biomass and wood products) Carbon storage balance (forest biomass only)
Scenario Name, Reference Carbon storage capacity forest biomass Carbon storage capacity of wood products Wood supply Scenario Name, Reference Carbon storage capacity forest biomass Carbon storage capacity wood products Wood supply Region Model Period t CO₂/m³ g CO₂-eq./MJ1 t CO₂/m³ g CO₂-eq./MJ1
WEHAM Wood Preference Scenario [3] -17.0 Mt CO₂ -152.0 Mt CO₂ 3,762 million m³ WEHAM Base Scenario [2] -664.5 Mt CO₂ 13.0 Mt CO₂ 2,717 million m³ Germany WEHAM 2020-2050 0.46 58.1 0.62 78.3
FABio Wood Scenario [5] -32.7 Mt CO₂ 5.2 Mt CO₂ 2,751 million m³ FABio Base Scenario [5] -565.5 Mt CO₂ 40.1 Mt CO₂ 2,380 million m³ Germany FABio 2020-2050 1.34 169.2 1.44 181.8
FABio Base Scenario [5] -565.5 Mt CO₂ 40.1 Mt CO₂ 2,380 million m³ FABio Forest Vision [5] -1,943.7 Mt CO₂ 206.2 Mt CO₂ 1,558 million m³ Germany FABio 2020-2050 1.47 185.6 1.68 212.1
FABio Forest Vision [5] -1,943.7 Mt CO₂ 206.2 Mt CO₂ 1,558 million m³ FABio No-use Scenario (Öko-Institut. unpublished data) -4,005.0 Mt CO₂ 550.0 Mt CO₂ 0 million m³ Germany FABio 2020-2050 1.10 138.9 1.32 166.7
FABio Wood Scenario [5] -32.7 Mt CO₂ 5.2 Mt CO₂ 2,751 million m³ FABio No-use Scenario (Öko-Institut. unpublished data) -4,005.0 Mt CO₂ 550.0 Mt CO₂ 0 million m³ Germany FABio 2020-2050 1.25 157.8 1.44 181.8
SILVA_Hainich Use Scenario [6] 23.9 t CO₂/ha -30.4 t CO₂/ha 196.8 m³/ha SILVA_Hainich No-use Scenario [6] -137.7 t CO₂/ha 0 t CO₂/ha 0 m³/ha Model region in Thuringia SILVA 30 years 0.67 84.6 0.82 103.5
SILVA Hohe-Schrecke Use Scenario [6] -5.2 t CO₂/ha -16.2 t CO₂/ha 175.8 m³/ha SILVA Hohe-Schrecke No-use Scenario [6] -132.2 t CO₂/ha 0 t CO₂/ha 0 m³/ha Model region in Thuringia SILVA 30 years 0.63 79.5 0.72 90.9
SILVA Vessertal Use Scenario [6] -52.0 t CO₂/ha -21.6 t CO₂/ha 213.0 m³/ha SILVA Vessertal No-use Scenario [6] -313.0 t CO₂/ha 0 t CO₂/ha 0 m³/ha Model region in Thuringia SILVA 30 years 1.12 141.4 1.23 155.3
1 Energy content of wood of 7,920 MJ/m³ (derived from FNR [7]).

Literature

  • [2] Öhmichen, K. et al. (2018): Die alternativen WEHAM-Szenarien: Holzpräferenz, Naturschutzpräferenz und Trendfortschreibung. Szenarienentwicklung, Ergebnisse und Analyse. Thünen Report 59. Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig.
  • [3] WEHAM Basisszenario (WEHAM-BS): https://www.weham-szenarien.de
  • [4] RED II (2018): Richtlinie (EU) 2018/2001 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 11. Dezember 2018 zur Förderung der Nutzung von Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen (Neufassung).
  • [5] Böttcher, H.; Hennenberg, K.; Winger, C. (2018) Waldvision Deutschland. Beschreibung von Methoden, Annahmen und Ergebnissen. Öko-Institut, Berlin.

    See also: https://waldvision.de/

  • [6] Mund, M.; Frischbier, N.; Profft, I.; Raacke, J.; Richter, F.; Ammer, C. (2015): Klimaschutzwirkung des Wald- und Holzsektors: Schutz- und Nutzungsszenarien für drei Modellregionen in Thüringen. BfN-Skripten 396. BfN (Hrsg.), Bonn.
  • [7] Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe – FNR (2020): Basisdaten Bioenergie Deutschland 2021. Gülzow-Prüzen.